Eurogamer performs a cross-platform comparison for Fallout 3, and finds the PS3 version falls behind a bit.<blockquote>It's a little known fact that Bethesda farmed out its excellent PS3 Oblivion conversion to an external developer, and you can't help but wonder whether the same thing has happened here. It's almost as though there's two different agendas here - with 360, the aim is to retain the look and feel of the PC version as much as possible, cutting corners where they can get away with it to improve performance. With PS3, the objective seems to be different - to retain everything from the PC game (anti-aliasing aside), no matter what the impact may be on the way the game feels and plays. Different conversions, different compromises, different levels of success.</blockquote>A forum thread on GameTrailers meanwhile concludes the PS3 has better graphics than the Xbox.<blockquote>After some comparisons being done on other forums, it was shown that actually the PS3 version has some noticeable advantages over the Xbox 360 version, specially for textures and specular lighting, here are some PICS:</blockquote>Who can argue with PICS!
TechSpot gives a semi-review of the game and tests every combination of settings and graphics cards that ever existed.<blockquote>Unfortunately there appears to be a huge amount of gamers that are having issues getting Fallout 3 to run on their systems without generating random crashes. Apparently there is a memory leak issue, among other things, that is really hurting stability (patch issued yesterday). Fortunately I am yet to encounter a single crash while playing Fallout 3, and more remarkable was the fact that we were able to vigorously test 18 different graphics cards without a single glitch.
In our end, the biggest problem we encountered had more to do with performance, or rather the lack of it when using certain graphics cards. Take the multi-GPU products such as the Radeon HD 3870 X2 and 4870 X2, neither of which worked as they are supposed to. Both graphics cards were limited to a single GPU as the latest Catalyst drivers are yet to support Crossfire in Fallout 3.</blockquote>To me this reads a lot like SuAside talking about ammo types, but I'm sure someone will make sense of it.
And finally another malcontent blog entry with an agenda, called "Fallout 3 perfect? Not so fast...", from ScrewAttack:<blockquote>The way I see most games journalism publications, online and print, is that they are a kind of second public relations arm of the industry. Most reviews seem to be written in a way that the writers write to impress the large studios and companies. At the same time, a lot of smaller studios seem to have to have a truly amazing project before most publications will even look at it. Why is that? Is there some sort of payola scheme at work where publications are rewarded for "good" reviews and articles? Smart money would say yes.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of publications thrive off of getting exclusive content which usually only comes from companies. Companies publishing their AAA titles, the ones that they spend years and millions on, will want their products shown in the best light will allow access to publications that often give that positive spin. Positive reviews equal increased revenue for both parties: publishing houses see increased sales and publications get increased advertising and exclusive content.</blockquote>
TechSpot gives a semi-review of the game and tests every combination of settings and graphics cards that ever existed.<blockquote>Unfortunately there appears to be a huge amount of gamers that are having issues getting Fallout 3 to run on their systems without generating random crashes. Apparently there is a memory leak issue, among other things, that is really hurting stability (patch issued yesterday). Fortunately I am yet to encounter a single crash while playing Fallout 3, and more remarkable was the fact that we were able to vigorously test 18 different graphics cards without a single glitch.
In our end, the biggest problem we encountered had more to do with performance, or rather the lack of it when using certain graphics cards. Take the multi-GPU products such as the Radeon HD 3870 X2 and 4870 X2, neither of which worked as they are supposed to. Both graphics cards were limited to a single GPU as the latest Catalyst drivers are yet to support Crossfire in Fallout 3.</blockquote>To me this reads a lot like SuAside talking about ammo types, but I'm sure someone will make sense of it.
And finally another malcontent blog entry with an agenda, called "Fallout 3 perfect? Not so fast...", from ScrewAttack:<blockquote>The way I see most games journalism publications, online and print, is that they are a kind of second public relations arm of the industry. Most reviews seem to be written in a way that the writers write to impress the large studios and companies. At the same time, a lot of smaller studios seem to have to have a truly amazing project before most publications will even look at it. Why is that? Is there some sort of payola scheme at work where publications are rewarded for "good" reviews and articles? Smart money would say yes.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of publications thrive off of getting exclusive content which usually only comes from companies. Companies publishing their AAA titles, the ones that they spend years and millions on, will want their products shown in the best light will allow access to publications that often give that positive spin. Positive reviews equal increased revenue for both parties: publishing houses see increased sales and publications get increased advertising and exclusive content.</blockquote>
